Speaking just one day after the East Libyan rebels publicly condemned the notion of the African Union ceasefire and peace talks, the Libyan government accused NATO of undermining its efforts at secret talks.
Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim insisted secret talks had been underway for some time, and that NATO’s opposition to a “peaceful settlement” was the primary reason they hadn’t made more progress.
The Italian government, which has broken with most of NATO in calling for a ceasefire in the nation, denied reports that they were involved in facilitating any of the talks, saying that any negotiations on Italian soil “did not amount to anything serious.”
Most of NATO’s belligerents in the war, however, do appear to be opposed in principle to the notion of a peace deal, with the US, British and French leaders all demanding that any end to the war involved the ouster of the Gadhafi government.
It's funny how media gets to choose who is a rebel and who is an insurgent when they both mean pretty much the same thing. The big difference is that the term "rebel" has a romantic notion to it thanks to a many fictional characters in print and other media, and flattering accounts of historical figures. The term insurgent has a very sinister tone to it. NATO supports a group, like in Libya, they are "rebels". NATO fights against a group that does not submit to its will, and they are insurgents.
from dictionary.com:
rebel; a person who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country.
insurgent; a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
I would say that the Taliban would be a little more "rebel" as the government they are fighting against was installed by foreign powers and is no more than 10 years old, while the "rebels" in Libya would be more "insurgent" as they are fighting their own government that has ruled for several decades.